From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zombie.ncsc.mil (zombie.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.131]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7BF4DrT010920 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (jazzdrum.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.7]) by zombie.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i7BF4C5L009086 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:04:12 GMT Subject: Bug in SE-coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1 ? From: Wolfgang Pfeiffer To: Russell Coker , SE-Linux Cc: Toni Timonen Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-EfvenXVTEWEwZuTCuWme" Message-Id: <1092236631.2790.226.camel@debby> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:03:51 +0200 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov --=-EfvenXVTEWEwZuTCuWme Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All I tried to compile coreutils with selinux support: It only worked after applying the coreutils-ftbfs.patch from http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=259282 ---> Toni Timonen: Thanks for this patch: You definitely saved my day, as it seems. .... :) <--- The whole issue might be one of the "wrong" automake version: IIRC the build that failed in the following used automake 1.8, whereas automake 1.7 seems to be used after applying Toni's patch, IINM .... But this is a wild guess, without really knowing what's going on ... (I did't make logs for the builds this time) Details: $ ls -l `which gcc` lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Aug 11 14:24 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-3.3 Building a default Debian coreutils successfully # apt-get build-dep coreutils Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 159 not upgraded. apt-get source coreutils cd coreutils-5.2.1 dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot The above happily ends with these binaries: coreutils_5.2.1-2_powerpc.deb fileutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb shellutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb textutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb Failed build of SE-coreutils: I then tried to build the packages above with selinux support: apt-get source coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1 cd coreutils-5.0.91/ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot Result: No binaries, but this error at the end of the build: ---------------------------------------------------------------- then mv -f ".deps/tail.Tpo" ".deps/tail.Po"; else rm -f ".deps/tail.Tpo"; exit 1; fi powerpc-linux-gcc -g -DSYSLOG_SUCCESS -DSYSLOG_FAILURE -DSYSLOG_NON_ROOT -O2 -o tail tail.o ../lib/libfetish.a ../lib/libfetish.a -lm -lrt none required powerpc-linux-gcc: none: No such file or directory powerpc-linux-gcc: required: No such file or directory make[4]: *** [tail] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91/src' make[3]: *** [all] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91/src' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91' make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Happy End: For this build I didn't download the SE-sources for the package again: I simply deleted anything but coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1.diff.gz coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1.dsc coreutils_5.0.91.orig.tar.gz in the dir and then did a apt-get source coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1 to unpack the source, as I hope ... cd coreutils-5.0.91/ cp /home/shorty/uploads/coreutils-ftbfs.patch . $ patch -p1 < coreutils-ftbfs.patch patching file debian/rules dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot then ended with these packages: coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_powerpc.deb fileutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb shellutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb textutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb So what is this? 1. Was it my mistake when the unpatched build in "Failed build of SE-coreutils" above didn't work? 2. Is the necessity to apply the coreutils-ftbfs.patch for a successful SE-coreutils build only one that applies to ppc? Or are there others with the same, or similar, error on different hardware? 3. Is it a bad idea to patch the source in coreutils proper so people do not have the hassle of having to find out the cause of the build error I had? If not I'd simply offer the coreutils-ftbfs.patch on my download dir on ? 4. Or is the whole coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1 so dated that it's better to not offer it for downloading and installing it? Thanks in anticipation. Best Regards Wolfgang PS: I tried my best to paste the commands I entered plus the output resulting as correct as possible to this message: Please let me know if you find inconsistencies in the above, as I'm not always sure what my MUA ("Ximian Evolution") really is doing with every keystroke I'm typing ... -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-ben1 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages coreutils depends on: pi libacl1 2.2.23-1 Access control list shared library ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-15 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an -- no debconf information -- Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer --=-EfvenXVTEWEwZuTCuWme Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=coreutils-ftbfs.patch Content-Type: text/x-patch; name=coreutils-ftbfs.patch; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit diff -u coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules --- coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules +++ coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ configure-stamp: $(patched) dh_testdir - cd $(BUILD_TREE) && aclocal -I m4 && autoconf + cd $(BUILD_TREE) && aclocal-1.7 -I m4 && autoconf cd $(BUILD_TREE) && CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) \ LDFLAGS=$(LDFLAGS) ./configure \ --=-EfvenXVTEWEwZuTCuWme-- -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.